Keir Starmer

[bluenova]

You misunderstand. Pension credit means testing is INCREDIBLY difficult and inefficient. It is not fit for purpose when it leaves 800,000 of the very poorest people. eligible to receive it, not getting it.

Tying WFA to it, just makes the situation even worse.

Then why are you talking about an extra £200 for a few rich people? You're not talking about making pension credit universal I assume?

Do you actually know the cost of administering pension credit? Given that it can pay out around £17k for a couple, then it's clearly going to be highly cost effective for it to be means tested.

And do you really know that the 800,000 are the very poorest? It's almost certain the majority either have other sources of income, are being supported in another way (e.g. are living with, or supported by close family), or are close enough to the limit that they don't believe it's worth applying.

No means tested benefit takeup will ever get close to 100%, and 14 years of the Tories has chipped away at a lot of the services that reach people who aren't claiming, but even so, most are still likely to have a reason for not applying.

 

[west didsblue]

Rayner wasn't appointed Deputy Leader by Starmer, the Labour Party including the Unions voted for her.

They didn’t appoint Reeves and Cooper.

 

[TinFoilHat]

Rayner wasn't appointed Deputy Leader by Starmer, the Labour Party including the Unions voted for her.

Individual Labour party members voted for her.

Unions don't get a block vote anymore.

 

[mancityvstoke]

And do you really know that the 800,000 are the very poorest? It's almost certain the majority either have other sources of income, are being supported in another way (e.g. are living with, or supported by close family), or are close enough to the limit that they don't believe it's worth applying.

Have you got some actual evidence of this?

 

[Chippy_boy]

Then why are you talking about an extra £200 for a few rich people? You're not talking about making pension credit universal I assume?

Do you actually know the cost of administering pension credit? Given that it can pay out around £17k for a couple, then it's clearly going to be highly cost effective for it to be means tested.

And do you really know that the 800,000 are the very poorest? It's almost certain the majority either have other sources of income, are being supported in another way (e.g. are living with, or supported by close family), or are close enough to the limit that they don't believe it's worth applying.

No means tested benefit takeup will ever get close to 100%, and 14 years of the Tories has chipped away at a lot of the services that reach people who aren't claiming, but even so, most are still likely to have a reason for not applying.

I know the 800,000 are the poorest, by definition. Because there's 800,000 who are eligible, who don't claim it. That means they have incomes of less than £11k per year and now we're taking £200 or £300 off them.

To be honest the debate should end there. I don't know why I even bother when people on your side are thrashing around trying to justify something that is completely unjustifiable on any basis whatsoever.

But regards the rest, no I am not suggesting that pension credit should not be means tested - don't be ridiculous. Merely that the process is far too onerous and offputting (demonstrably when people on < £11k are not receiving it.)

Can we not just have a consensus on here for once and ALL of us agree that taking £200 or £300 off someone who is on less than £11k per year, is fucking outrageous? Is that so hard for you lot to accept? Do you really have to come out with all sorts of whataboutery to try to deflect from this outrage?

 

[hilts]

I didn’t say it wasn’t. All I said was I think it will end up being a good policy and I meant in terms of linking it to pension credit. I don’t want them to change that, I think it’s the right thing to do.

Yeah but it's pension credit and something else and at a different time, its basically a different policy. Anyhow let's hope sense overrules ego and it gets changed before the cold weather comes in.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Have you got some actual evidence of this?

Of course he doesn't because it's utter bollocks. 800,000 aren't claiming because they are too proud, can't understand the forms, have dementia, don't know they are eligible, are on drugs and incapabale and god knows what else.

Honestly I find the behaviour of some of the Labour zealots on here, reprehensible. Trying to duck and weave and justify and skirt around something that is clearly fucking outrageous rather than just being honest and saying, yeah removing WFA from poor people is fucking outrageous.

 

[mancityvstoke]

Of course he doesn't because it's utter bollocks. 800,000 aren't claiming because they are too proud, can't understand the forms, have dementia, don't know they are eligible, are on drugs and incapabale and god knows what else.

Honestly I find the behaviour of some of the Labour zealots on here, reprehensible. Trying to duck and weave and justify and skirt around something that is clearly fucking outrageous rather than just being honest and saying, yeah removing WFA from poor people is fucking outrageous.

I'm no tory as you know but what labour are doing is incredibly stupid.

Anyone defending this shit is the same.

 

[hilts]

I know the 800,000 are the poorest, by definition. Because there's 800,000 who are eligible, who don't claim it. That means they have incomes of less than £11k per year and now we're taking £200 or £300 off them.

To be honest the debate should end there. I don't know why I even bother when people on your side are thrashing around trying to justify something that is completely unjustifiable on any basis whatsoever.

But regards the rest, no I am not suggesting that pension credit should not be means tested - don't be ridiculous. Merely that the process is far too onerous and offputting (demonstrably when people on < £11k are not receiving it.)

Can we not just have a consensus on here for once and ALL of us agree that taking £200 or £300 off someone who is on less than £11k per year, is fucking outrageous? Is that so hard for you lot to accept? Do you really have to come out with all sorts of whataboutery to try to deflect from this outrage?

I think you already now the answer to that.

 

[bluenova]

Have you got some actual evidence of this?

I've completed 1000s of benefits checks, and completed well over 1000 benefits claims (all from the point of trying to get people to claim, rather than the official side), so I do know a little about it.

I was also replying to a post suggesting they were the 'very poorest', and I'm arguing that amongst those who "may" be eligible, the ones that don't are likely to be the less poor.

The reasons usually given for not claiming are stigma, complexity etc., and these are genuine, but it's also the case that the more you're in need, the less these matter. I know from personal experience, that if you tell someone you may get a few extra pounds they "will think about it". If you tell someone they're entitled to £100s, they will usually apply. The 'very poorest' are much more likely to come into contact with other support services, and almost any service providing help to people in need, will encourage benefit claims, because it helps reduce pressure on their services.